Quantum algorithm can predict what the Large Hadron Collider will see

Classical computing doesn't have a chance with some of this stuff.

Every time particle physicists look for the Higgs boson or any other members of a large collection of theoretical particles, they have to do a bit of statistics. Well, quite a lot of statistics, actually. The Standard Model of physics helps tell them what they'll probably see when two particles smash together at nearly light speed. To find something new, they have to look for places where the signals they see don't match up to the pattern predicted by the Standard Model.

Those predictions, however, require impressive amounts of computing power and are only approximations at best. There are some conditions where there are simply no effective methods of calculating the result with a classical computer. But a quantum computer doesn't have to play by the same rules, and researchers have now produced an algorithm that can solve the equations that dictate what goes on within particle colliders like the LHC.

The problem (or at least one of them) with simulating particle collisions is that it requires a combination of quantum mechanics, which describes the behavior of the particles involved, and relativity, since the particles are moving at nearly the speed of light. Although these two descriptions of reality are incompatible in some ways, Quantum Field Theory (which Richard Feynman helped develop) can provide a description of the interactions of fundamental particles like quarks and electrons.

However, Feynman's equations don't apply to all situations, and there are many cases—like when a system is far from equilibrium—where they simply can't be solved, at least not with a classical computer. As the paper describing the new algorithm puts it, "Quantum field theory, which applies quantum mechanics to functions of space and time, presents additional technical challenges, because the number of degrees of freedom per unit volume is formally infinite."

So the authors of the new paper (one each from Caltech, Pittsburgh, and the NIST), have turned to quantum computing, explicitly simulating a system where two particles collide and scatter off each other. This may sound simple, but they note a couple of things that make matters a bit more complex. Some of the particles' energy may be converted into mass, meaning more particles come out of the collision than go in. In addition, the incoming momentum doesn't determine exactly how fast the particles that exit will be moving, but only influence the probability distributions typical of quantum objects.

The algorithm itself involves preparing a bunch of particles as quantum wave packets, then getting these packets to interact. The details of how to do this physically aren't specified, and the nature of the interactions are such that the authors describe things by saying, "within the interaction picture, our algorithm is more naturally described in the formalism of Hamiltonians and within the Schrödinger picture." The key thing is that, even though there is an indeterminate number of potential states, the algorithm allows the simulation to work with only a finite number of qubits.

Unfortunately, finite does not necessarily mean "small." The authors estimate that the minimum number of qubits needed is at least 1,000, and may be closer to 10,000. Considering that having more than a couple qubits working together is currently a major accomplishment, actually implementing this algorithm is left for the indefinite future.

That said, if we can ever implement this, it will be a validation of the promise of quantum computing. The algorithm can clearly solve some problems that classical computers can't touch. But the authors also compared its performance on related problems that classic computers can solve, and showed that the quantum version provides an exponential speed-up.

This gets back to the P vs. NP issue (where P are problems that classical computers can solve relatively easily). As an accompanying perspective points out, this is further evidence that the equivalent of P in the quantum world (called BQP, and representing problems that quantum computing handles relatively painlessly) probably includes all P problems, but is probably larger. That means there will be things that quantum computers really do handle well.

In any case, the perspective also points out that the development of effective quantum algorithms has sometimes led to insights that improved the algorithms we use on classical computers. So we may not need to build a 1,000-qubit quantum computer for the folks running the LHC experiments to see some benefits from this work.

Promoted Comments

The problem (or at least one of them) with simulating particle collisions is that it requires a combination of quantum mechanics, which describes the behavior of the particles involved, and relativity, since the particles are moving at nearly the speed of light. Although these two descriptions of reality are incompatible in some ways, Quantum Field Theory (which Richard Feynman helped develop) can provide a description of the interactions of fundamental particles like quarks and electrons.

This paragraph is mistaken; there is absolutely nothing wrong with uniting quantum mechanics and special relativity, and this is exactly what is done in quantum field theory. What may have confused the author is that we don't know how to unite quantum mechanics with *general* relativity, but that is a different beast that is unlikely to rear its head at the LHC since there is not remotely enough mass involved in the collisions for effects due to general relativity to show up.

No, i'm pretty aware of it, and i tried to phrase that sentence in a way that encompassed that (the "in some ways" bit). Let me explain what i was trying to accomplish. A number of readers will be aware that QM and relativity are difficult to reconcile, so i didn't want to dump "hey, here's a field that unifies them" in without comment. At the same time, i did not want to go into a long diversion on the differences between special and general relativity, and why QM is good with one but not the other, since it was completely aside from the point of the article.

So, that phrasing was an attempt at a careful balancing. If you can think of a better way to handle the same thing, i'd be happy to hear it.

5713 posts | registered Jul 29, 2003

Ars Science Video >

A celebration of Cassini

A celebration of Cassini

A celebration of Cassini

Nearly 20 years ago, the Cassini-Huygens mission was launched and the spacecraft has spent the last 13 years orbiting Saturn. Cassini burned up in Saturn's atmosphere, and left an amazing legacy.

The problem (or at least one of them) with simulating particle collisions is that it requires a combination of quantum mechanics, which describes the behavior of the particles involved, and relativity, since the particles are moving at nearly the speed of light. Although these two descriptions of reality are incompatible in some ways, Quantum Field Theory (which Richard Feynman helped develop) can provide a description of the interactions of fundamental particles like quarks and electrons.

This paragraph is mistaken; there is absolutely nothing wrong with uniting quantum mechanics and special relativity, and this is exactly what is done in quantum field theory. What may have confused the author is that we don't know how to unite quantum mechanics with *general* relativity, but that is a different beast that is unlikely to rear its head at the LHC since there is not remotely enough mass involved in the collisions for effects due to general relativity to show up.

Using something that can't be fully measured to make future predictions about something that can't be fully measured. What is this, derivatives trading? So far it seems that quantum computing has produced a whole lot of promises but very little tangible results.

Using something that can't be fully measured to make future predictions about something that can't be fully measured. What is this, derivatives trading?

The real joke is on you for attempting to make a snarky joke about something you clearly don't understand.

Of course quantum computers contain information that can be measured; if they didn't, nobody would care. The trick is just to avoid measuring the quantum information unintentionally (i.e., via some sort of noise) until the end of the computation when the desired result has been obtained.

Quote:

So far it seems that quantum computing has produced a whole lot of promises but very little tangible results.

It is still a relatively young field tackling a very hard problem, so you will have to forgive it for not being able to deliver a quantum desktop to your door on a timescale of your liking.

The quote from the article breaks in an unfortunate place. The full sentence is "Although quantum field theory is typically expressed in terms of Lagrangians and within the interaction picture, our algorithm is more naturally described in the formalism of Hamiltonians and within the Schrödinger picture."

This quote references the formalism used, not the nature of the interactions themselves. The Schrödinger picture puts the time dependence in the quantum states whereas the Heisenberg picture puts the time dependence in the operators. The "interaction picture" referred to here is an elegant hybrid which leverages the advantages of each, but in this particular case is not well-suited to describing quantum logic operations.

Using something that can't be fully measured to make future predictions about something that can't be fully measured. What is this, derivatives trading? So far it seems that quantum computing has produced a whole lot of promises but very little tangible results.

Have you ever tried to solve an hamiltonian equation by hand for one object? it takes a bit of timeHave you written the code to solve hamiltonian equations for one object? it takes more timeHave you ever tried to solve a system of hamiltonians for thousands of objects in time scales that would be considered negligible in most physics problems solved in real life? i havent nor would i want to try doing that with the computers we have now.Notice how i didn't even talk about trying to incorporate the forces involved that would influence the positions as well. this is some intense ish to solve even with few inputs

stick to fox news, the science might be more appropriate for your level of comprehension

The problem (or at least one of them) with simulating particle collisions is that it requires a combination of quantum mechanics, which describes the behavior of the particles involved, and relativity, since the particles are moving at nearly the speed of light. Although these two descriptions of reality are incompatible in some ways, Quantum Field Theory (which Richard Feynman helped develop) can provide a description of the interactions of fundamental particles like quarks and electrons.

This paragraph is mistaken; there is absolutely nothing wrong with uniting quantum mechanics and special relativity, and this is exactly what is done in quantum field theory. What may have confused the author is that we don't know how to unite quantum mechanics with *general* relativity, but that is a different beast that is unlikely to rear its head at the LHC since there is not remotely enough mass involved in the collisions for effects due to general relativity to show up.

No, i'm pretty aware of it, and i tried to phrase that sentence in a way that encompassed that (the "in some ways" bit). Let me explain what i was trying to accomplish. A number of readers will be aware that QM and relativity are difficult to reconcile, so i didn't want to dump "hey, here's a field that unifies them" in without comment. At the same time, i did not want to go into a long diversion on the differences between special and general relativity, and why QM is good with one but not the other, since it was completely aside from the point of the article.

So, that phrasing was an attempt at a careful balancing. If you can think of a better way to handle the same thing, i'd be happy to hear it.

The problem (or at least one of them) with simulating particle collisions is that it requires a combination of quantum mechanics, which describes the behavior of the particles involved, and relativity, since the particles are moving at nearly the speed of light. Although these two descriptions of reality are incompatible in some ways, Quantum Field Theory (which Richard Feynman helped develop) can provide a description of the interactions of fundamental particles like quarks and electrons.

This paragraph is mistaken; there is absolutely nothing wrong with uniting quantum mechanics and special relativity, and this is exactly what is done in quantum field theory. What may have confused the author is that we don't know how to unite quantum mechanics with *general* relativity, but that is a different beast that is unlikely to rear its head at the LHC since there is not remotely enough mass involved in the collisions for effects due to general relativity to show up.

No, i'm pretty aware of it, and i tried to phrase that sentence in a way that encompassed that (the "in some ways" bit). Let me explain what i was trying to accomplish. A number of readers will be aware that QM and relativity are difficult to reconcile, so i didn't want to dump "hey, here's a field that unifies them" in without comment. At the same time, i did not want to go into a long diversion on the differences between special and general relativity, and why QM is good with one but not the other, since it was completely aside from the point of the article.

So, that phrasing was an attempt at a careful balancing. If you can think of a better way to handle the same thing, i'd be happy to hear it.

Okay, that makes more sense; I was honestly surprised that you would have gotten confused over that. I think, though, that it would have been sufficient just to use the terms "special relativity" and "general relativity" explicitly so that the reader could see that they were two different things, such as in the following:

"The problem (or at least one of them) with simulating particle collisions is that it requires a combination of quantum mechanics, which describes the behavior of the particles involved, and special relativity, since the particles are moving at nearly the speed of light, the result of which is known as Quantum Field Theory (which Richard Feynman helped develop) which provides a description of the interactions of fundamental particles like quarks and electrons. (The case of special relativity contrasts with the case of *general relativity*, which we do not know how to combine with quantum mechanics.)"

Using something that can't be fully measured to make future predictions about something that can't be fully measured. What is this, derivatives trading? So far it seems that quantum computing has produced a whole lot of promises but very little tangible results.

I agree. If the article title was, "...Quantum algorithm can predict what the Large Hadron Collider should see if current theories are correct..." - then I would feel sympathetic to the author, and interested in what they have written. As things stand, I'm incredulous - it looks as though Ars Technica is being sucked into a singularity where every article becomes some variation on,"Quantum ... predict ...", or"[Insert random technology that most people recognise that they don't understand] enables scientists to develop [insert impossible objectives within the realm of science fiction]". 100 years ago, these types of articles in the popular publications of the day would have read,"Relativity ... predict(s|ed|ing)? ..." 1000 monkeys on 1000 typewriters could produce popular reading material if only they worked within templates like these!

The problem (or at least one of them) with simulating particle collisions is that it requires a combination of quantum mechanics, which describes the behavior of the particles involved, and relativity, since the particles are moving at nearly the speed of light. Although these two descriptions of reality are incompatible in some ways, Quantum Field Theory (which Richard Feynman helped develop) can provide a description of the interactions of fundamental particles like quarks and electrons.

This paragraph is mistaken; there is absolutely nothing wrong with uniting quantum mechanics and special relativity, and this is exactly what is done in quantum field theory. What may have confused the author is that we don't know how to unite quantum mechanics with *general* relativity, but that is a different beast that is unlikely to rear its head at the LHC since there is not remotely enough mass involved in the collisions for effects due to general relativity to show up.

No, i'm pretty aware of it, and i tried to phrase that sentence in a way that encompassed that (the "in some ways" bit). Let me explain what i was trying to accomplish. A number of readers will be aware that QM and relativity are difficult to reconcile, so i didn't want to dump "hey, here's a field that unifies them" in without comment. At the same time, i did not want to go into a long diversion on the differences between special and general relativity, and why QM is good with one but not the other, since it was completely aside from the point of the article.

So, that phrasing was an attempt at a careful balancing. If you can think of a better way to handle the same thing, i'd be happy to hear it.

Actually most of the equations dealing with the interplay between quantum mechanics and special relativity have been known for several decades. I studied most of them in a class specific to this topic, "Relativistic Quantum Mechanics" over three decades ago. I remember one question on the final that began, "Starting with Schrodinger's relativistic wave equation show..." (Oh, and the professor did not give us the equation. We were expected to know it already and how to apply it.)

Now solving these equations in closed form .... ah there's the problem!

The problem (or at least one of them) with simulating particle collisions is that it requires a combination of quantum mechanics, which describes the behavior of the particles involved, and relativity, since the particles are moving at nearly the speed of light. Although these two descriptions of reality are incompatible in some ways, Quantum Field Theory (which Richard Feynman helped develop) can provide a description of the interactions of fundamental particles like quarks and electrons.

This paragraph is mistaken; there is absolutely nothing wrong with uniting quantum mechanics and special relativity, and this is exactly what is done in quantum field theory. What may have confused the author is that we don't know how to unite quantum mechanics with *general* relativity, but that is a different beast that is unlikely to rear its head at the LHC since there is not remotely enough mass involved in the collisions for effects due to general relativity to show up.

No, i'm pretty aware of it, and i tried to phrase that sentence in a way that encompassed that (the "in some ways" bit). Let me explain what i was trying to accomplish. A number of readers will be aware that QM and relativity are difficult to reconcile, so i didn't want to dump "hey, here's a field that unifies them" in without comment. At the same time, i did not want to go into a long diversion on the differences between special and general relativity, and why QM is good with one but not the other, since it was completely aside from the point of the article.

So, that phrasing was an attempt at a careful balancing. If you can think of a better way to handle the same thing, i'd be happy to hear it.

Actually most of the equations dealing with the interplay between quantum mechanics and special relativity have been known for several decades. I studied most of them in a class specific to this topic, "Relativistic Quantum Mechanics" over three decades ago. I remember one question on the final that began, "Starting with Schrodinger's relativistic wave equation show..." (Oh, and the professor did not give us the equation. We were expected to know it already and how to apply it.)

Now solving these equations in closed form .... ah there's the problem!

(Edited for parenthetical statements.)

I think that he is well aware of this, it's just that for some reason he keeps using the imprecise word "relativity" rather than explicitly referring to "special relativity" or "general relativity", which makes him sound like he doesn't know much about what he is talking about even though he does.

Commenter who's got a chip on his shoulder doesn't bother to ask, therefore doesn't realize that i didn't promote that comment.

Can i expect an apology?

EDIT:For those who care, the managing editor spotted the cross's comments, and asked me whether this was really an error that required a fix. I said i would explain the text in the comments so that people would know what was going on, and notified him when i left the comment. He apparently promoted it (though i've not confirmed that), possibly assuming it would help any readers who were confused by the paragraph to understand what was going on.

I'd like to think that these actions display an attention to detail and care for our readers. But, then again, i'd like to think that someone would ask for details before throwing unfounded accusations around, and that clearly didn't happen here.

"The problem (or at least one of them) with simulating particle collisions is that it requires a combination of quantum mechanics, which describes the behavior of the particles involved, and special relativity, since the particles are moving at nearly the speed of light, the result of which is known as Quantum Field Theory (which Richard Feynman helped develop) which provides a description of the interactions of fundamental particles like quarks and electrons. (The case of special relativity contrasts with the case of *general relativity*, which we do not know how to combine with quantum mechanics.)"

I think that is probably a better solution (aside from the really long sentence, which i'd split up ). The one thing i'd hesitate about is that it leaves the difference between special and general relativity undefined, and a lot of casual readers won't know the difference. It's probably safe to assume that most of them won't care, and those who do can look it up on Wikipedia, but i try to avoid that situation where possible.

Basically, there's no ideal solution, but i think your solution is less non-ideal than mine, and i'll keep that in mind if i have to approach this situation again.

Commenter who's got a chip on his shoulder doesn't bother to ask, therefore doesn't realize that i didn't promote that comment.

Can i expect an apology?

Actually I sent a complaint to the editors that you had promoted your own comment so it would seem that I also owe you an apology, which I offer you now.

Nonetheless, I hope that you can see that having a comment by the author be promoted to a space reserved for readers makes Ars look bad, so I hope that you talk to the editors about this. I recognize that there might have been a desire to have a response to my comment appear in the vicinity of the article, but the better way to have done this would have been to add a postscript to the article itself.

"The problem (or at least one of them) with simulating particle collisions is that it requires a combination of quantum mechanics, which describes the behavior of the particles involved, and special relativity, since the particles are moving at nearly the speed of light, the result of which is known as Quantum Field Theory (which Richard Feynman helped develop) which provides a description of the interactions of fundamental particles like quarks and electrons. (The case of special relativity contrasts with the case of *general relativity*, which we do not know how to combine with quantum mechanics.)"

I think that is probably a better solution (aside from the really long sentence, which i'd split up ). The one thing i'd hesitate about is that it leaves the difference between special and general relativity undefined, and a lot of casual readers won't know the difference. It's probably safe to assume that most of them won't care, and those who do can look it up on Wikipedia, but i try to avoid that situation where possible.

Basically, there's no ideal solution, but i think your solution is less non-ideal than mine, and i'll keep that in mind if i have to approach this situation again.

Okay, thank you for listening to my feedback, and I completely agree with you that there is no obviously ideal solution.

Nonetheless, I hope that you can see that having a comment by the author be promoted to a space reserved for readers makes Ars look bad, so I hope that you talk to the editors about this. I recognize that there might have been a desire to have a response to my comment appear in the vicinity of the article, but the better way to have done this would have been to add a postscript to the article itself.

I think you're mistaking the purpose of promoted content. The idea is that it should add value that's not otherwise available in the piece itself. It shouldn't really matter where that value comes from, just that it does something positive for the majority of readers, who normally don't visit the comments at all.

If we were just promoting stuff that was "wow, great article" or some other form of sock puppetry, then yes, that would be a problem. But i don't think that's the case here.

The problem (or at least one of them) with simulating particle collisions is that it requires a combination of quantum mechanics, which describes the behavior of the particles involved, and relativity, since the particles are moving at nearly the speed of light. Although these two descriptions of reality are incompatible in some ways, Quantum Field Theory (which Richard Feynman helped develop) can provide a description of the interactions of fundamental particles like quarks and electrons.

This paragraph is mistaken; there is absolutely nothing wrong with uniting quantum mechanics and special relativity, and this is exactly what is done in quantum field theory. What may have confused the author is that we don't know how to unite quantum mechanics with *general* relativity, but that is a different beast that is unlikely to rear its head at the LHC since there is not remotely enough mass involved in the collisions for effects due to general relativity to show up.

No, i'm pretty aware of it, and i tried to phrase that sentence in a way that encompassed that (the "in some ways" bit). Let me explain what i was trying to accomplish. A number of readers will be aware that QM and relativity are difficult to reconcile, so i didn't want to dump "hey, here's a field that unifies them" in without comment. At the same time, i did not want to go into a long diversion on the differences between special and general relativity, and why QM is good with one but not the other, since it was completely aside from the point of the article.

So, that phrasing was an attempt at a careful balancing. If you can think of a better way to handle the same thing, i'd be happy to hear it.

No, that's still not quite right. There's still the problem of infinities and renormalization in relativistic quantum field theories that exist exclusive of any problems about general relativity. Ridding the theory of infinities was a major impetus for Feynman's work in the 50's. The result was a mathematical technique called renormalization, a technique that does not apply to all relativistic quantum theories. Renormalization amounts to subtracting infinities from infinities to get a finite result. Of this, Dirac said:

"Most physicists are very satisfied with the situation. They say: 'Quantum electrodynamics is a good theory and we do not have to worry about it any more.' I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it is small - not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!"

and Feynman said:

"The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."

That was in 1985. To this day, quantum electrodynamics has not been proved to be internally consistent. The problem revolves around short distance behavior of field interactions and the existence of what are called Landau poles. Quantum chromodynamics does not have one and has been proved consistent. Quantum electrodynamics does and has not. Renormalized theories amount to, in some sense, introducing fudge factors to force the theory into accord with experiment. The fact that you can fudge it in a consistent and systematic way does not make it any more desirable.

Merging quantum theory and general relativity may actually solve this problem since GR likely provides short distance/high energy regularization automatically as one approaches the Planck length, below which the very concept of "distance" probably loses physical meaning. As a result, I and others suspect that renormalization is not destined to be a permanent feature of fundamental physics. Lewis Ryder's text on quantum field theory puts it thus:

"In the Quantum Theory, these [classical] divergences do not disappear; on the contrary, they appear to get worse. And despite the comparative success of renormalisation theory the feeling remains that there ought to be a more satisfactory way of doing things."

I am confused. If we truly have an algorithm, why would its predictions be limited to what the LHC could discover as seems to be implied in the article's title? I suppose its possible that the algorithm is useless until it is tested which would require results from the LHC, but then there might be ways to prove the algorithm is correct.

I think you're mistaking the purpose of promoted content. The idea is that it should add value that's not otherwise available in the piece itself. It shouldn't really matter where that value comes from, just that it does something positive for the majority of readers, who normally don't visit the comments at all.

If that is the case, then might I suggest removing or changing the label "PROMOTED READER COMMENT", as this makes a pretty strong statement that it does matter where the comment comes from? For example, you could replace "PROMOTED READER COMMENT" with "PROMOTED FORUM COMMENT" or just "PROMOTED COMMENT".

From your perspective this might not seem like a big deal, but it does seem like a big deal from the perspective of the readers since when a non-reader comment is promoted in the section explicitly labeled "PROMOTED READER COMMENT" it comes across as breaking a promise, which is why some of us (including myself) irrationally overreacted to it.

From your perspective this might not seem like a big deal, but it does seem like a big deal from the perspective of the readers since when a non-reader comment is promoted in the section explicitly labeled "PROMOTED READER COMMENT" it comes across as breaking a promise, which is why some of us (including myself) irrationally overreacted to it.

What promise? What are you talking about? Please explain this to me, and link up the promise we've apparently made. I hate to drag this conversation off topic, but since people are apparently irrationally freaking out over this by all means, explain.

It wouldn't matter one iota if Jay had promoted the comment himself instead of another editor. Doing do is a specifically designed feature that writers have been instructed to take advantage of. I hope to see it all the time. Specifically this:

A reader has a good comment or question in the comments. The writer answers the reader. Then promotes his or her own comment with the reply. Now instead of maybe a few hundred people at best noticing it, thousands of normal readers who don't troll through the comments can benefit from it. In this case there is not only a reader comment in there, there are actually two, with the nested quoting. (Edit: my bad, one of the quotes is from the story I think. Either way, point stands, responding to reader comment.) You'll never see an author come into the comments, write a solo comment without quoting a reader, and then promote it. That would be asinine. But clearly that didn't happen here.

What promise? What are you talking about? Please explain this to me, and link up the promise we've apparently made. I hate to drag this conversation off topic, but since people are apparently irrationally freaking out over this by all means, explain.

The section is labeled "PROMOTED READER COMMENT". Putting a comment there that is not from a reader violates what the section claims to be about because it says that it is for a reader comment, but instead was used for an author comment. That is to say, you are currently saying one thing and then doing another. This is the sense in which it is a broken promise.

Is this the end of the world? Of course not. But it does come across negatively for you to explicitly create an expectation and then suddenly break it in this way, even if that was not what you thought you were doing.

Quote:

It wouldn't matter one iota if Jay had promoted the comment himself instead of another editor. Doing do is a specifically designed feature that writers have been instructed to take advantage of. I hope to see it all the time.

Then why don't you follow the advice I gave in my earlier comment and relabel the section "PROMOTED COMMENT" or "PROMOTED FORUM COMMENT"? This would completely solve the problem of violating your own rule for what goes in that box.

In fact, I would even go further and say that it might be best to drop the "EDITOR'S PICK" part as well because that implies that the editor was pick the best/his favorite comment rather than just some arbitrary comment that he thought was useful to go in that box, and instead replace the entire label with something like "THOUGHTS FROM THE FORUM" or "THOUGHTS FROM THE TRENCHES". This gets rid of just about any expectation one might have about what is intended to go in that box, which matches maximally with what you intend to use it for in practice.

Another option is that the author could add postscripts to the article. This has the additional advantage that it allows the author to potentially answer more than a single question, whereas using the box only allows a single question to be answered.

Frankly the only reason I'd change that text is that it's a little long and unwieldily, and it also wraps in an ugly fashion on the mobile site. I have no concerns about some 'broken promise', the text and intention of that box are all working as planned. That the author is somehow unfairly appearing in his own story seems to me to be utterly absurd, and would only be an issue to someone like MatthiasF, who actively stalks and hates on Jay at any given opportunity.

Authors can edit their posts at any time with updates, we do it all the time. That's not what this is.

Anyways, I agree the text should be shorter, but I don't agree that there's actually an issue with the phrasing that merits any real concern.